openldap-bugs December 2011

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

20 participants
34 discussions

(ITS#7105) Feature Request: accesslog exclude rule
by marco.pizzoli＠gmail.com 05 Dec '11

05 Dec '11

Full_Name: Marco Pizzoli Version: ALL OS: Linux URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (213.174.164.11) Hi, This is a feature request. I would like to take forward what started with ITS#6815. My request is to extend slapo-accesslog flexibility by introducing a directive "logbase-exclude". My request is to exclude a particular basedn to be logged by slapo-accesslog. If I have a tree with several ou's at the same level, it seems to me a lot inefficient to explicit all ou's logbases except one, only to exclude one of them. Thanks in advance Marco

1 0

(ITS#7104) refreshOnly syncrepl out of sync during bulk update/delete operations
by mkrz＠free.fr 04 Dec '11

04 Dec '11

Full_Name: Martin Krzaczek Version: 2.4.28 OS: CentOS 5.7 URL: Submission from: (NULL) (83.202.204.201) Hello, I noticed an issue with "refreshOnly" syncrepl when a large number of records is added, updated and deleted. At the end of synchronization the contextCSN is equal on all servers, but the data is out of synchronization for some deleted records that remains undeleted on consumer/slave servers. Restarting the consumer or forcing a synchronization with "slapd ... -c 'rid=1,csn=0' " does not help. A similar issue was submitted few weeks ago (ITS#7052), but I'm not sure the problem is the same. My configuration : - CentOS 5.7 + OpenLDAP 2.4.28 + BDB 5.1.29 (the same issue occurs with CentOS 5.7 + OpenLDAP 2.4.26 + BDB 5.1.25) - one main provider where all modification operations are performed - one 'first level' consumer synchronizing data on the main provider and providing data for 'second level' consumers - one 'second level' consumer synchronizing data on the 'first level' consumer/provider I tried several combinations of configurations (refreshOnly/refreshAndPersist, syncprov-sessionlog) and noticed that when refreshOnly mode is used, some records may be not deleted on consumer/slave servers. The number of undeleted records varies depending on the configuration. So with a higher value of "syncprov-sessionlog" (for example 5000 instead of 500) the number of lost records is reduced. I have an application that sequentially (i.e. in a single thread) adds about 12000 records, modifies about 25000 records and deletes about 1000 records. Add/update/delete operations are mixed i.e. it is possible a have sequences such as add/add/delete/update/update/update/delete/add/... With a small amount of records to add/update/delete the synchronization properly works without any data loss. So it seams that if all modifications may be cached and transmitted to consumers then deleted records are not lost. There is no data loss for added and updated records whatever is the number of operations. Regards, Martin

1 0

Re: (ITS#7085) mutex lockup issue
by quanah＠zimbra.com 02 Dec '11

02 Dec '11

--On Friday, December 02, 2011 11:41 AM -0500 Soichi Hayashi <hayashis(a)indiana.edu> wrote: > Quanah, > > > Were you able to recreate this issue? > Hi Soichi, I have not even attempted to reproduce it. I will see if I have time in my lab to do so. However, I use BDB 5.2.28. I will note that the backtrace you provided is useless, since you apparently did not build your binaries with debugging symbols, which is always advised. I also don't know what optimization level you used, but I strongly advise against building optimized OpenLDAP builds, gcc rarely does the right thing. Finally, OpenLDAP doesn't use select() on Linux platforms, it uses poll() which appears to be what you're backtrace indicates as well. Since you don't have debugging symbols enabled, it's virtually impossible to determine where the problem is originating. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#7085) mutex lockup issue
by hayashis＠indiana.edu 02 Dec '11

02 Dec '11

--0016364c7ac7fff89504b31ea350 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Quanah, Were you able to recreate this issue? Soichi On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Soichi Hayashi <hayashis(a)indiana.edu>wrote: > Quanah, > > We have compiled OpenLDAP 2.4.26 with BDB 5.2.36. The OpenLDAP locked up 4 > hours into our testing in similar manner to what I have reported earlier. I > believe this issue still occurs on the latest version. > > However, when I used gdb, I didn't notice the mutex locked threads like I > did with OpenLDAP 2.4.22. > > Following is from locked 2.4.26 slapd server. > > (gdb) info thread > 14 Thread 0x418dd940 (LWP 13814) 0x00000037aa4d48a8 in epoll_wait () > from /lib64/libc.so.6 > 13 Thread 0x420de940 (LWP 13815) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in > pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > 12 Thread 0x428df940 (LWP 13816) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in > pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > 11 Thread 0x430e0940 (LWP 13843) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in > pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > 10 Thread 0x438e1940 (LWP 13855) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in > pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > 9 Thread 0x440e2940 (LWP 13856) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 > () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > 8 Thread 0x448e3940 (LWP 13857) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 > () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > 7 Thread 0x450e4940 (LWP 13858) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 > () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > 6 Thread 0x458e5940 (LWP 13859) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 > () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > 5 Thread 0x460e6940 (LWP 13860) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 > () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > 4 Thread 0x468e7940 (LWP 2007) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 > () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > 3 Thread 0x470e8940 (LWP 2008) 0x00000037aa4cd722 in select () from > /lib64/libc.so.6 > 2 Thread 0x478e9940 (LWP 2009) 0x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 > () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > * 1 Thread 0x2ac6ccfdc930 (LWP 13805) 0x00000037aac07b35 in pthread_join > () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > (gdb) thread 3 > [Switching to thread 3 (Thread 0x470e8940 (LWP 2008))]#0 > 0x00000037aa4cd722 in select () from /lib64/libc.so.6 > (gdb) bt > #0 0x00000037aa4cd722 in select () from /lib64/libc.so.6 > #1 0x000000000054ece5 in ?? () > #2 0x000000000054aa15 in ?? () > #3 0x0000000000557637 in ?? () > #4 0x0000000000557c11 in ?? () > #5 0x00000000004b2d93 in ?? () > #6 0x00000000004e9d7c in ?? () > #7 0x00000037aac0673d in start_thread () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 > #8 0x00000037aa4d44bd in clone () from /lib64/libc.so.6 > > It looks like it's waiting on select() on thread 3 which never get fired > when I access it using ldapsearch command. > > I ran strace on ldapsearch (on a client machine) and following is what I > see at the end of the log.. > > $ strace ldapsearch -h 129.79.14.152 -p 2180 -l 3 -x -b > mds-vo-name=WT2,o=grid > "(&(objectClass=GlueLocation)(GlueLocationName=TIMESTAMP))" > > .... > write(1, "\n", 1 > ) = 1 > write(3, "0l\2\1\2cg\4\26mds-vo-name=WT2,o=grid\n"..., 110) = 110 > poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN|POLLPRI|POLLERR|POLLHUP}], 1, -1 > > Not sure if this strace is useful or not.. but after this, ldapsearch > never returned. > > Thanks, > Soichi > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)zimbra.com>wrote: > >> --On Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:01 PM +0000 hayashis(a)indiana.eduwrote: >> >> Full_Name: Soichi Hayashi >>> Version: 2.4.22 >>> >> >> OpenLDAP 2.4.22 is quite old, and had various known issues. Please use a >> current release (2.4.26). This report will not be investigated unless you >> can reproduce it with a current release of OpenLDAP. You also fail to note >> what BDB release you are using, and whether or not it has all the relevant >> patches applied to it. If you have a broken policy of only using vendor >> provided packages, then you will need to send a bug report to RedHat, as it >> is their job to maintain their vendor packages. >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> --Quanah >> >> -- >> >> Quanah Gibson-Mount >> Sr. Member of Technical Staff >> Zimbra, Inc >> A Division of VMware, Inc. >> -------------------- >> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration >> > > --0016364c7ac7fff89504b31ea350 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Quanah,<div><br></div><div>Were you able to recreate this issue?</div><div>= <br></div><div>Soichi<br><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 16= , 2011 at 3:56 PM, Soichi Hayashi <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:h= ayashis(a)indiana.edu">hayashis(a)indiana.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div>Quanah,</div><div><br></div><div>We ha= ve compiled OpenLDAP 2.4.26 with BDB 5.2.36. The OpenLDAP locked up 4 hours= into our testing in similar manner to what I have reported earlier. I beli= eve this issue still occurs on the latest version.</div> <div><br></div><div>However, when I used gdb, I didn't notice the mutex= locked threads like I did with OpenLDAP 2.4.22.</div><div><br></div><div>F= ollowing is from locked 2.4.26 slapd server.</div><div><br></div><div> (gdb) info thread</div> <div>=A0 14 Thread 0x418dd940 (LWP 13814) =A00x00000037aa4d48a8 in epoll_wa= it () from /lib64/libc.so.6</div><div>=A0 13 Thread 0x420de940 (LWP 13815) = =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libp= thread.so.0</div> <div>=A0 12 Thread 0x428df940 (LWP 13816) =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_= cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0</div><div>=A0 11 Thre= ad 0x430e0940 (LWP 13843) =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC= _2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0</div> <div>=A0 10 Thread 0x438e1940 (LWP 13855) =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_= cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0</div><div>=A0 9 Threa= d 0x440e2940 (LWP 13856) =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_= 2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0</div> <div>=A0 8 Thread 0x448e3940 (LWP 13857) =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_c= ond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0</div><div>=A0 7 Thread= 0x450e4940 (LWP 13858) =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2= .3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0</div> <div>=A0 6 Thread 0x458e5940 (LWP 13859) =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_c= ond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0</div><div>=A0 5 Thread= 0x460e6940 (LWP 13860) =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2= .3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0</div> <div>=A0 4 Thread 0x468e7940 (LWP 2007) =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_co= nd_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0</div><div>=A0 3 Thread = 0x470e8940 (LWP 2008) =A00x00000037aa4cd722 in select () from /lib64/libc.s= o.6</div> <div>=A0 2 Thread 0x478e9940 (LWP 2009) =A00x00000037aac0aee9 in pthread_co= nd_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0</div><div>* 1 Thread 0x= 2ac6ccfdc930 (LWP 13805) =A00x00000037aac07b35 in pthread_join () from /lib= 64/libpthread.so.0</div> <div>(gdb) thread 3</div><div>[Switching to thread 3 (Thread 0x470e8940 (LW= P 2008))]#0 =A00x00000037aa4cd722 in select () from /lib64/libc.so.6</div><= div>(gdb) bt</div><div>#0 =A00x00000037aa4cd722 in select () from /lib64/li= bc.so.6</div> <div>#1 =A00x000000000054ece5 in ?? ()</div><div>#2 =A00x000000000054aa15 i= n ?? ()</div><div>#3 =A00x0000000000557637 in ?? ()</div><div>#4 =A00x00000= 00000557c11 in ?? ()</div><div>#5 =A00x00000000004b2d93 in ?? ()</div><div>= #6 =A00x00000000004e9d7c in ?? ()</div> <div>#7 =A00x00000037aac0673d in start_thread () from /lib64/libpthread.so.= 0</div><div>#8 =A00x00000037aa4d44bd in clone () from /lib64/libc.so.6</div= ><div><br></div><div>It looks like it's waiting on select() on thread 3= which never get fired when I access it using ldapsearch command.=A0</div> <div><br></div><div>I ran strace on ldapsearch (on a client machine) and fo= llowing is what I see at the end of the log..</div><div><br></div><div>$ st= race ldapsearch -h 129.79.14.152 -p 2180 -l 3 -x -b mds-vo-name=3DWT2,o=3Dg= rid "(&(objectClass=3DGlueLocation)(GlueLocationName=3DTIMESTAMP))= "</div> <div><br></div><div>....</div><div>write(1, "\n", 1</div><div>) = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =3D 1</div><div>write(3, "= 0l\2\1\2cg\4\26mds-vo-name=3DWT2,o=3Dgrid\n"..., 110) =3D 110</div><di= v>poll([{fd=3D3, events=3DPOLLIN|POLLPRI|POLLERR|POLLHUP}], 1, -1</div> <div><br></div><div>Not sure if this strace is useful or not.. but after th= is, ldapsearch never returned.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>S= oichi</div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><div><br></div><br><div = class=3D"gmail_quote"> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount <span dir=3D"ltr"><<= a href=3D"mailto:quanah@zimbra.com" target=3D"_blank">quanah(a)zimbra.com</a>= ></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">--On Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:01 PM +0= 000 <a href=3D"mailto:hayashis@indiana.edu" target=3D"_blank">hayashis@indi= ana.edu</a> wrote:<br> <br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Full_Name: Soichi Hayashi<br> Version: 2.4.22<br> </blockquote> <br> OpenLDAP 2.4.22 is quite old, and had various known issues. =A0Please use a= current release (2.4.26). =A0This report will not be investigated unless y= ou can reproduce it with a current release of OpenLDAP. =A0You also fail to= note what BDB release you are using, and whether or not it has all the rel= evant patches applied to it. =A0If you have a broken policy of only using v= endor provided packages, then you will need to send a bug report to RedHat,= as it is their job to maintain their vendor packages.<br> <br> <br> Thanks!<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br> <br> --Quanah<br> <br> --<br> <br> Quanah Gibson-Mount<br> Sr. Member of Technical Staff<br> Zimbra, Inc<br> A Division of VMware, Inc.<br> --------------------<br> Zimbra :: =A0the leader in open source messaging and collaboration<br> </font></span></blockquote></div><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div> --0016364c7ac7fff89504b31ea350--

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs December 2011